Which feats are "taxes"?

[Umbran]

Having a rules discussions with GMforPowergamers isn't likely to be productive.

Ladies and gentlemen,

This is a prime example of what we call, "Addressing the poster, and not the post." In rhetorical terms, it is an attempt to use the personality of the poster to dismiss the logic of their arguments.

This is, shall I say, something we frown upon around here. Especially when you try to use things that happen on entirely different messageboards as evidence. We don't want to see drama from elsewhere dragged onto EN World. It is quite demonstrable that people can behave in different ways in different contexts.

In general, if you personally want to not pay attention to someone, that's your choice. Actively and publicly attempting to get others to do so is RUDE. Don't do it.

 

[Garthanos]

To use a 3e example, is Skill Focus (Diplomacy) an (overpowered) feat tax?

If diplomacy was the skill used dozens of times by each player in half the game scenes with each one being a moment to shine... I wonder.
I cant say for 3e I skipped that from AD&D.. was diplomacy that awesome there in?

 

[Cadfan]

So really, for those calling it a "feat tax", do you ever take +2 proficiency weapons? Start out with "only" an 18 (or 16) attack stat (or boost other stats sometimes)?

Our group has actually agreed to limit the arms race by voluntarily restricting ourselves to a standard array of 16/14/13/12/11/10. It means our characters are objectively less optimized than they could be, but it also stops us from using 18/15/10/10/10/8 arrays.

What it really comes down to is that the cost of one feat in order to get +1/+2/+3 is such a small cost for such a tremendously huge bonus that, if you don't get that its so good that its basically mandatory if you want to be remotely competitive with the rest of your group and at high levels remotely competitive with monster defenses, then the problem is you.

 

[Cadfan]

To use a 3e example, is Skill Focus (Diplomacy) an (overpowered) feat tax?

Depends on the DM. If the DM lets you use diplomacy precisely by the book, ie, lets you overcome encounters by succeeding on a sufficiently high diplomacy check to shift the monster from hostile to non hostile, then yes. Its overpowered. Whether you call it a tax is really up to you, but yes, 3e diplomacy let you bypass entire encounters with one roll.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

my arguement on the D&D board was why I was glad they changed it...those opt builds sucked once the monsters said 'hey he can't be hurt kill the squashes' and basicly made my defender into another striker...

fine no one wants to hear me???

Ok, I will say this one last time then leave all of you smarter people to call it a feat tax...

The ONLY way i will execept this 'math glitch' is if you can pull all the veriables that change from level 1-level 30... amount of powers, level of powers, class features, and magic items...when you mathmaticly 'prove' that go right ahead.

 

[Intense_Interest]

Depends on the DM. If the DM lets you use diplomacy precisely by the book, ie, lets you overcome encounters by succeeding on a sufficiently high diplomacy check to shift the monster from hostile to non hostile, then yes. Its overpowered. Whether you call it a tax is really up to you, but yes, 3e diplomacy let you bypass entire encounters with one roll.

If the meaning of the phrase "feat tax" (or ____ Tax) is so debatable as to be useless in discussion, then it really doesn't have a meaning at all.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Still i believe DMfPG is right. He is the only one giving exapmles of character who just do not need it. And he is dismissed.
He also gived examples of characters who better take it and gets dismissed.

What do you want to hear? You are right. Expertise ruined the game?
No one said that this feat is not extremely good and even more if you look at nimble blade vs light blade expertise (you would really be stupid to take nimble blade over light blade expertise)
Actually when i argumented about it restricting your choices i thought you must take a specific weapon instead of a group (see how seldom i consider taking it)

Restricting it to a certain weapon might be a good idea. For classes who can only use a certain kind of weapon group (like a rogue) it is so good i would not skip it. Even if it would only give a +1 bonus at all tiers.

I would not remove it however. a +1 bonus for an axe wielding dwarf seems ok. Spending a feat for a minimal bonus. Yes, it only procs at a ceratain number at level 1-14. It is about the same as the weapon mastery feats, which make another number than 20 a crit.
It doesn´t increase your maximum damage, but makes it more probable that you achieve the maximum, where weapon focus and critical feats increase your maximum.

If you need to be reliable, for all means, take expertise. If you want to be remembered, improve your damage output (weapon focus, better crits, backstabber etc.).

Example: with 1d8 + 4 damage you hit for an average of 8.5... when you hit at 10, you are better off with weapon focus than weapon expertise if damage is your main concern

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Still i believe DMfPG is right. He is the only one giving exapmles of character who just do not need it. And he is dismissed.
He also gived examples of characters who better take it and gets dismissed.

thank you. I do have problems typeing my thoughts (I do much better talking then writeing) so i try to give people the benfit of the doubt, but I do feel they just don't want to discuss anything except:

What do you want to hear? You are right. Expertise ruined the game?

No one said that this feat is not extremely good and even more if you look at nimble blade vs light blade expertise (you would really be stupid to take nimble blade over light blade expertise)

Yea, if I knew someone who took an attack increasing feat I would suggest this feat first...how ever I never knew anyone who said there concept called for nibmle blade...and if it did heck take both.




[sblock=my stupid idea of how I would errata it]
Make it a paragon feat that gives +1 with a weapon group, and increase at 21st to +2[/sblock]

 

[Dausuul]

That isn't even entirely what I'm getting at unless you consider the D&D system to be the combat system and little else. I understand you're going for hyperbole here, but I've run and played in sessions (in 1e-3e) in which we used the system extensively... but mostly the skills, wilderness exploration, utility spells, and other systems not directly involved in combat.

A game focused on those would probably find issues with feats designed to favor certain skills that get used more than others or where certain classes get advantages in over-used skills. In those cases, the combat feats that form a dominant strategy for combat-heavy games wouldn't be an issue. The skill-based feats might be.

I'm sorry, but D&D is a combat system and little else. The combat rules in D&D are incredibly detailed and specific. Edition after edition has refined and developed them. Everything else is tacked on as an afterthought. Look at how messed-up skill challenges were out of the gate; heck, people still have trouble making them work. Look at the amount of space devoted to combat - from each class's combat stats, to combat spells and powers, to the rules for combat itself, to combat-oriented feats - in every PHB from OD&D on. It started life as a wargame, and it shows.

That's not to say you have to play D&D as a hackfest or you're having badwrongfun. In fact, I'm a big fan of RP-heavy D&D, and wish it got more support in the rules. But as far as the system itself goes, D&D is and has always been extremely combat-centric.

 

[Cadfan]

Still i believe DMfPG is right. He is the only one giving exapmles of character who just do not need it. And he is dismissed.
He also gived examples of characters who better take it and gets dismissed.

Its hard to debate someone's example characters. For instance, he claims he has an Avenger in his group that only misses when he rolls 1s. I cannot prove that this is not true. But I suspect.

Example: with 1d8 + 4 damage you hit for an average of 8.5... when you hit at 10, you are better off with weapon focus than weapon expertise if damage is your main concern

This is true. Of course, when you use a 2[W]+stat encounter power and hit for an average of 13, expertise is better. Or if your attacks have non damage benefits that require you to hit, expertise is probably better. Or if you find a +2 weapon and change your average hit damage to 10.5, expertise is better.